Hunt

I say baloney. While Mr. Rogers certainly taught that everyone is special, he also taught and modelled making moral choices. I think you can much better blame the entitlement attitude on the me-first, greed-fueled atmosphere created by Madison Avenue and consumer culture. In fact, I think the attitude that the world owes you nothing (and the corollary, that you don't anybody anything) that and you have to compete to get what's yours is just another manifestation of the same thing. The opposite--something that Mr. Rogers also modelled--is altruism.

"...That the same parents who don't mind having their sons in half (or less) of a Scout Uniform never apply the same logic to their son's soccer or baseball or football uniforms?"

Well, not always, actually. When my son played rec baseball, they had uniforms, but it was not unusual to see a boy in non-uniform pants, socks, or hat--(never a problem with the shirt). Neither the coaches nor the umpires made an issue of this--although they did ensure that the boys had proper equipment (ie, no playing in shorts). On the other hand, when my daughter played travel soccer, both the coaches and the refs were pretty strict about standard uniforming.

Is a Boy Scout troop more like a rec team or a travel team? Particular units may vary substantially in how they approach things, and attitude toward uniform is probably part of the mix. At one end of the spectrum, we hear about troop with highly uniformed honor patrols, everybody wearing the campaign hat, "Class A" at all times, even when camping, etc.--those troops may also be more intense about other elements of Scouting, such as OA participation, advancement, jamborees, etc. At the other end of the spectrum might be a troop with a lot of casual scouts, with the main focus being on camping and other outings. Such a troop may also have a more casual attitude about uniforms. I think there's room for troops at various places along this spectrum, and boys will gravitate to the unit that fits them. We may disagree about the point at which the unit's activities (and uniforming) are too far from the center to be acceptable as a good Scouting experience, of course.

Here's the passage from the FAQ on the National website:

"Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active in your troop and patrol" defined?

Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:

He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on).

The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position."

While I too think this is somewhat ambiguous, I think it's consistent with the idea that time in the POR counts for advancement, whether performance was adequate or not. It suggests that the remedy for poor performance is removal, not denial or delay of advancement. The question is, if this is truly National's position, how do we respond to it? Rather than trying to work around it at the SM conference or BOR stage, I think we should focus more on setting the expectations for the POR at the beginning them, and monitoring them along the way.

Beavah, I agree with you, and we've had it happen that a boy came to a BOR, but there had been an error that the SM didn't catch (such as length of time in a POR, or which MBs were done). In such a situation, I wouldn't tell the boy that he "failed" his BOR, just that there was a mistake that needed to be fixed. When this happened, the boy was disappointed but not really upset--he went and fixed the problem. That's a very different story from a boy worrying about whether he will fail his BOR because he might not be able to tie a knot on command.

I agree that the under-the-collar necker just doesn't look right. I think that may be one reason so many troops have opted to drop the necker (an approved option--which means that the Eagle you mention may well have been fully uniformed). One note: isn't it called a "scarf" in Britain?

It seems to me that the Clinton Valley Council interpretation just can't be squared with what National has said on the FAQ, which to me clearly says that time in POR will count for advancement, but that the SM should remove a boy who ultimately can't be persuaded to perform. How could a BOR find that performance was inadequate when the POR requirement has been signed off by the SM?

I'd like to clarify that I think "denial of advancement" is a bad thing that shouldn't happen. Most cases I've heard of advancement being "denied" by adults have been wrong--a result of retesting, or capricious application of subjective criteria, or a failure to inform a boy in advance of what was expected. In my opinion, a boy should never enter a BOR wondering whether he will "pass" or not. As a corrolary, he should never get to the stage of a pre-BOR Scoutmaster Conference only to find out that he hasn't satisfied the SM's expectations. As others have indicated, advancement is something a boy earns, and the adults are just supposed to verify that he has in fact earned it, and then recognize the achievement.

Have you ever changed your mind about a decision you made after somebody provided you with information you didn't have when you made it? That's what should have happened here. Rather than overruling the SPL or "pulling the rug out from under him," the adult leaders should have simply suggested that he reconsider his decision based on new facts. "I notice that you've put X and Y together in one patrol. You may not realized that....you may want to think about separating them, based on that." That way, the change in course is still his decision.

I would just like to echo the idea that uniforming expectations are most likely to be satisfied if they flow from the boys than from the adults. Just ask yourself which would affect you more if you were a Committee Member helping out at a meeting: The SM approaching you to ask you to wear your uniform when working with the boys, or the SPL doing so?

Idea: If you have a registered adult who helps out but isn't fully uniformed, maybe the boys would like to present him with uniform pieces to thank him for all his work. Think he might wear them?

It seems to me that this discussion boils down into the simple question of what a SM can or should do when a boy simply isn't performing his POR. I think what BSA is responding to is the unfortunately common situation of the SM waiting until the Board of Review to do anything about the lack of performance. This may be most common for PORs that aren't mission-critical (i.e., Historian, or Instructor)--and the result is either advancement that hasn't really been earned, or denial of advancement without adequate mentoring or warning. What I take away from this is that it's essential to establish the expectations for a POR at the very beginning, and to do some performance checks early on. In most cases, performance will be OK, in a few it will be substandard, but can improve with more mentoring and support, and in a very few it will be clear that improvement is just not going to happen. In those very few cases, I think it is reasonable to remove the boy from the post--he'll probably agree to it in even most of these cases. Maybe he can be switched to another POR for which he is better suited, or maybe he just isn't interested in leading or advancing. To take the extreme case, is there anybody who wouldn't remove a boy from a POR if he simply stopped attending, and didn't respond to requests to return?

For the sake of this response, I am assuming that the committee member wants to see a Handbook with signoffs for all ranks, not just Life. If this is the case, I can only see two possible reasons he wants this:

1. He thinks it is somehow required or mandatory for advancement for there to be a signed-off Handbook. This is not the case, and if this is his reason, perhaps the Advancement Chair from the Council could clear up the problem.

2. He doesn't believe the requirements were actually met. If this is the problem, you may need some documentation, but blue cards and Advancement reports should help. The advancement report is evidence that all the requirements for the relevant rank were signed off.

How about: "Adults use Boards of Review to retest skills that have already been signed off by boy leaders."

It seems to me that this is a good--and unfortunately common--example of an institutionalized adult-run element.

Similarly, instead of "Adults sign blue cards," how about, "Adults control what merit badges may be pursued, and select merit badge counselors."

In another thread, someone expressed dismay that registered committee members don't wear uniforms. I confess that I am of two minds about this. In my son's troop, there are a couple of kinds of committee members: those who are very active with the troop, and those who are essentially parents helping out in the background. It seems natural for the former to wear uniforms to troop meetings and events, and most of them do (at least part of the time), but those in the latter group don't have uniforms, and would probably react with puzzlement at the suggestion that they should be wearing uniforms. Note: nobody wears uniforms to committee meetings--is that the norm?

You may think you have a strong boy-led program, but if you take key decisions away from the boys, you don't really, especially if they know that they are really supposed to be responsible for those decisions. You are just reminding them who is really boss, and that will carry through into everything you do. Of course, you will find that things may run more smoothly this way, if that is your goal.

There may be situations that are bad enough where adults have to step in, of course, but that is very different from institutionalizing adult-run elements.

It seems to me that you are in an untenable position, trying to lead an essentially LDS program, if you are no longer yourself part of LDS. I think you will find nothing but frustration, and should really consider lending your talents to a unit that is more ecumenical.

Although I generally like Hillary, I think "carrot sticks for the table" may be an apt metaphor for her likely governing style.

If the CO and the district aren't being helpful, why do you need the aggravation of dealing with this problem? Why not just lead a mass exodus to another unit? Presumably you aren't a scout leader because you like to fight--I see no reason to stay in there and slug it out. Find another unit and go. Within a very short time, you'll wonder why you didn't do it sooner, and the boys that follow you will be better off. You could deliver this as an ultimatum to the CO, but again, why excalate the conflict with them?

See, Merlyn, this is just another example of how you don't get it. This is a sad story, not a victory for fairness and justice. These kids were volunteering to provide safe rides--that's a good thing. Don't you agree? It's too bad that the particular arrangement created a problem for the school and the Crew, and a reasonable person would hope they can work it out. But it delights you that the evil Scouts were dealt another blow--and you came here to gloat about it. That's just sad, honestly.

By the way, the school system's lawyers may be right that the school district shouldn't actually charter the Crew, but if they advise the school that there's a problem with providing the phone line and even the stipend for the faculty advisors, they're overly cautious, because that would probably be approved by the courts as permissible expenditures given the secular purpose. But they probably don't want the aggravation of dealing with litigious atheists, even if they have a reasonable argument.

Didn't BSA fire the head of SeaBase for being gay? I think it's pretty clear that at least some employees are subject to the same restriction as members.

As far as the building in Philadelphia, while it might usually be the case that a building reverts to the owner when the lease expires, here the original intention was that the property be used by the Scouts in perpetuity as long as they used it for Scouting purposes. They are only being evicted because of a change in policy by the city, and that's what makes the situation clearly unfair to any reasonable person.

I think it's worth noting that it was the Scouts, not the school district that actually ran this program. They provided the volunteers and the insurance, and actually did the work. The school district provided space and a phone line, and paid (modest) stipends to the teacher sponsors. Now the school thinks it will find a new sponsor that will pick up the stipends, too. Maybe they will.

I think there may be a problem with the school district chartering the Venturing Crew, but I'm not sure there is any legal problem with the school partnering with the Crew to provide the SafeRides program. The service that is being provided--rides--is a secular purpose, and the level of entanglement with religion is minimal. I suspect that the provision of funds for that limited purpose would not be deemed unconstitutional if it went to court. But who needs the aggravation? Let the school district find somebody else to pay for it, if they can. If they can't, the people using the service can find their own rides.

"The Cradle of Liberty Council has to determine whats more valuableto allow members to contribute their skills without fear of discrimination, or to have the blessing of the national Boy Scouts."

This statement is nonsensical, as is the idea that the Cradle of Liberty Council needs to "clarify" its position. The Council doesn't have the choice of choosing a membership policy different from the national BSA, and everybody knows it. I think the problem here is that the city has the right to evict the Boy Scouts, but reasonable people can see that it's cheesy to just kick them out and take over the building they built, refurbished, and maintained, without some kind of compensation. The difficulty will be to find a way to modify the relationship in a way that is both fair and legal.

I think it's possible to understand the problem with this case without going into too much theology. Here, there was a troop sponsored for some lengthy period by a Catholic Church, but with a substantial number of non-Catholic scouts in it. It had a practice of inviting local elected officials to participate in Eagle ceremonies. A new priest takes over the church, bans the participation by the ideologically unsound politicians, and cans the CC when he complains. While it may well have been within the priest's right to do this, in my opinion it was not a wise thing to do unless there were instructions from above for all parishes to take this position. It created bad PR for the church, alienated leaders who were doing their best to help boys, and alienated local elected officials. You have to wonder whether it could have been handled a little better.

Why would the council do that? They don't check for Star and Life, and far as I know. I can understand the extra procedures to make sure that all the ts are crossed for Eagle itself, but I don't see why the unit can't be trusted to take care of the palms.

The bottom line is that you don't have enough active boys. Options:

1. Recruit more boys. This will be difficult, because this is an LDS troop. Are all the boys of the right age in the church already members?

2. Get the current boys more active. 10 is still pretty small, but is enough if they would get active. This can only happen, though, if you get help from the parents and the church leaders. Perhaps you need to move your meeting day or time to avoid the conflict with athletics.

3. Merge with another troop. I don't know if this is possible for you, again because this is an LDS troop. Is there another stake near enough for you to join forces?

I've never seen this form--the last time a boy in my son's troop earned a palm, we just put it on the normal advancement report, and nobody said anything about it. What's the point of the form?